BETTY KAPCHUCK, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY ORLAN AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Betty Kapchuck appeals a $3,000 jury verdict for injuries sustained in a rear-end automobile accident, challenging the admission of evidence regarding subsequent impacts to her abandoned vehicle and arguing the damages award was grossly inadequate. The appellate court affirms the jury verdict, finding the evidence was relevant and the damages award reasonable given the disputed medical testimony.
The evidence of subsequent collisions was relevant and admissible because Ms. Kapchuck sought compensation for damage to and loss of use of her vehicle. The $3,000 damage award was not grossly inadequate where medical testimony regarding permanent disability was disputed and competent testimony supported that Ms. Kapchuck sustained no permanent disability.
[1] Evidence of subsequent impacts to a plaintiff's vehicle is relevant and admissible when the plaintiff seeks compensation for damage to and loss of use and value of the ve…
[2] A jury's finding of negligence will not be disturbed if there is sufficient independent evidence to support the verdict, even if evidence of subsequent events was imprope…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The test of inadmissibility is lack of relevancy.”
Establishes the standard for determining whether evidence is admissible in the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Kapchuck's car was rear-ended by defendant Henry Orlan when she suddenly slowed down on an expressway. After the collision, Ms. Kapchuck and her p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bodily Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Betty Kapchuck, appeals a $3,000 jury award for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
While driving on the expressway Ms. Kapchuck’s car was rear ended by a car operated by defendant Henry Orlan when she suddenly slowed down. After impact Mr. Orlan moved his car off the expressway while Ms. Kapchuck and her passenger abandoned her car to seek safety at the shoulder of the road. Ms. Kapchuck’s unoccupied car was then hit by a second and third vehicle. She then sued Mr. Orlan and his liability carrier for bodily injury and property damage. After trial, the jury returned a verdict for $3,000 finding Ms. Kapchuck to be 65% negligent and Mr. Orlan 35%.
On appeal Ms. Kapchuck first argues that the court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence of impacts on her abandoned car by cars other than that of defendant thereby prejudicing the jury. We cannot agree.
The test of inadmissibility is lack of relevancy. Dixie-Bell Oil Company, Inc. v. Gold, Fla.App. 1973, 275 So. 2d 19. In addition to seeking recovery for bodily injury, Ms. Kapchuck sought compensation for damage to and loss of use and value of her car. Therefore, evidence as to her car being subsequently rear ended was relevant and admissible. We further note that Ms. Kapchuck and her passenger testified as to these subsequent collisions. We find that even if the jury had no knowledge of these subsequent impacts, there was sufficient independent evidence of Ms. Kapchuck’s negligence to support the jury’s verdict. See Wallace v. Rashkow, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 743.
For her second argument, Ms. Kapchuck contends that the damages awarded were grossly inadequate. This point lacks merit.
Since Ms. Kapchuck’s proof of alleged injuries was based upon disputed medical testimony, we cannot say that the jurors, as reasonable people, could not have found as they did. See Anastasio v. Summersett, Fla.App.1969, 217 So. 2d 854. There being competent substantial medical testimony that Ms. Kapchuck sustained no permanent disability as a result of the accident, we will not disturb the jury’s verdict. See City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 496 and cases cited therein.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donahue v. Albertson's Inc., 472 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…assachusetts Casualty Insurance Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (plaintiff is entitled to present evidence on the facts that are relevant to his theory of the case). Thus, “[t]he test of inadmissibility is lack of relevancy.” Kapchuck v. Orlan, 332 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In the case at bar, Donahue claimed that the abrupt closing of the door was caused by a loose connection in the breakaway switch which, in turn, was caused by the repeated slamming of the door against the breakaway switch.…
-
Dorsey Thompson and Joyce Thompson v. United States Sugar Corp., 548 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…assachusetts Casualty Insurance Co., 273 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (plaintiff is entitled to present evidence on the facts that are relevant to his theory of the case). Thus, “[t]he test of inadmissibility is lack of relevancy.” Kapchuck v. Orlan, 332 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). 472 So. 2d at 483. The Fourth District concluded that since Donahue claimed that the abrupt closing of the door was caused by a loose connection in the mechanism which, in turn, was caused by the repeated slamming of the d…
Authorities Cited
- Wallace v. Rashkow, 270 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- LEE v. State, 275 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Anastasio v. Summersett, 217 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Hall v. State, 215 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)